Yeah, I wouldn't consider the last 2 AC games reboots. However they are definitely in that odd grey area. You can't really call them spinoffs since they are direct sequels to AC 2. However, I wouldn't consider them pure sequels, since (looking at the series' naming conventions) that would be AC 3. I did like them from the perspective of getting more from the story. However, I also remember when Brotherhood came out and I immediately had the thought "Why can't they just release number 3?" It's a very fine line between providing useful story information and milking the series for as much money as you can get.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, I suppose they could be considered spinoffs in the sense that any of the Kingdom Hearts games (besides 1 and 2) are spinoffs. They are all directly linked to the story (with some like Chain of Memories being direct sequels) but I wouldn't all them sequels.
Comment has been collapsed.
You do bring up an issue that can be confusing. There are ways to keep the heart of a game intact without destroying what made everything so great about it. DMC3 would be an example of that - improved gameplay, same awesomeness. In the case of FPS games though, keeping the gameplay exactly the same and just updating the visuals just leads to outdated mechanics. That's why people rag on Halo and MW a lot.
tldr: You have a special something that makes a game unique - keep that. That's what people enjoyed. You have the things around it that make interacting those special things fun - find out how to make them more fun and add new ways. Simple as that.
Comment has been collapsed.
135 Comments - Last post 10 minutes ago by ChrisKutcher
16 Comments - Last post 17 minutes ago by WaxWorm
18 Comments - Last post 24 minutes ago by Stakaniy
2 Comments - Last post 53 minutes ago by Mayanaise
25 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by thoughtfulhippo
100 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by C4pM
28 Comments - Last post 6 hours ago by Happyleaf
23 Comments - Last post 2 minutes ago by MikeAgresso
27 Comments - Last post 6 minutes ago by winfryd
70 Comments - Last post 11 minutes ago by dalma
1 Comments - Last post 16 minutes ago by wigglenose
2,945 Comments - Last post 20 minutes ago by JMM72
284 Comments - Last post 21 minutes ago by Bum8ara5h
30 Comments - Last post 21 minutes ago by coleypollockfilet
I'm wondering about people's opinions on this subject. I've been seeing a lot of hate towards things like the new Fable and DMC games lately because they seem so different from the originals. People claim that they want the series to remain similar to the first one. However, then people complain that the games are the same and there's no point in buying them (look at MW3).
I understand that it's a complicated topic and there's many different circumstances but I'm hoping to gain a better understanding of the various viewpoints.
I personally welcome spinoffs with open arms. It's often a great way to expand on the in-game universe while not presenting the issue of repetitive gameplay.
As for sequels, changes are completely acceptable as long as the core concept is maintained and there's a logical reason for the changes. For example: Fable 1 and 2. Both share the same core concept of being action RPGs where you are able to make many moral choices. However, the main difference between the 2 (in my opinion) is the change to the magic system. However, if you think about the situation from a story perspective, the changes make sense. In Fable 1, you have formal training in the ways of the hero. Therefore it's reasonable that you have access to a wider range of spells. In Fable 2, you have to pick things up instinctively as you go. With this scenario it makes sense that you wouldn't necessarily know as many spells, but would be able to focus more on the ones you can learn.
Comment has been collapsed.